My opinion is that geeks have two phases in their lives. When they are young (and stupid/innocent) they work way too many hours trying to make a big bang. They still have the illusion that if they work really hard, and sacrofic their personal live they will be rich by 27. When they hit 27, they have married the first girl that would sleep with them, their wife is pregenant. This is when they hit the second stage and become "family unit isolated". They put in their time and then rush home to the wife, kids, and playstation.
If we geeks weren't allowed to have a computer, video game console, tv, palm, or any other time consuming electronic appliance, there might be a change for us. We would be forced to get out and socialize.....
You would think that user groups would be a good solution for geeks getting out more, but a lot of us can only manage to make the technical meetings and then run away before the social hour starts....
Ah, but that's the whole point. Let the consumer make that determination. I wouldn't spend $50 for a "premium" browser. I can't stand the "premium" features of browsers. What if all the resellers choose a better product to bundle? Then the IE would shrivel up and die.
what would hold the Internet/Application company from charging for Internet Explorer?
That's exactly the point. M$ should be required to have to sell IE as a seperate product, capable of standing on it's own. And not just the IE of today (after the other major commercial competitor has been removed) but IE 5-6 years ago, back when Netscape was king. If M$ had sold IE seperately, then we might not be where we are today. (* Yes, some would say the Netscape was giving away navigator, but officially they were selling it). Remember, 5-6 years ago, downloading something took a considerable effort. It took me a couple nights to finally get Netscape downloaded. By bundling IE, M$ overcame a major obsticle that netscape couldn't (because they didn't have a monopoly on the OS to bundle it with).
What the hell does freedom have to do with it? This isn't a basic freedom issue. It's about consumers and potential being protected from a predator (M$). Who said that a time warner tax was okay? I want that removed also.
I want the ability to read M$ word documents on my Unix box, I want software that doesn't need to be updated just because M$ saw a need to fix^h^h^change^h^h^h^h^h^break it so that their monopoly is broken. I want Netscape to have enough funding (and the ability to make money) so that a better product than IE is available to me. Yet, I can't have any of these things since the DOJ has decided to protect the M$ monopoly.
I imagine what the comment was saying is that it isn't "C". This means that all of the libraries created in "C" aren't automatically bound to the language. Perl, Ada, Java, and Lisp all have this "problem". The usual response is 1) there is a "painless" way to call C functions, or 2) the library that was mentioned has a binding (ie GTK binding).
Personally, this is a major reason why I don't use Ada. Sure you could add in C functions, sure there were bindings... But! it was a real pain to do. Calling C functions was annoying and the bindings I was forced to use (the only binding that existed) were broken. So things are easy to call via C functions calc_some_value(x,y) is easy, but when you start getting into callbacks, it becomes more difficult. I avoid Perl GUI programming for the same reasons.
Sure Lisp is industrial strength, but if I have to do lots of extra work to rapid develop something, I feel like I am losing the rapid development. (This seemed to be one of the benefits of Lisp, rapid development).
We really need some sort of library system (and don't say activeX or COM) that languages can automatically support... Just load the library, and call into it with the languages native invocations methods...
I regularily use things that don't need bleeding edge libs. Maybe the latest alpha/beta KDE or Gnome require these, but most stuff doesn't. I believe that this tale needs to go the way of the "linux is hard to install so it sucks and will die a slow painful death" agrument....
This is the economics of a monopoly. Make a high barrier to entry...
I don't think it would kill MS, but it might give them a shake up.... Keep doing bad things and someone will smack you with a stick...... vs Keep doing things and shrub will reward you by eliminating the only obstacle to your monopoly.....
The same voters that think that MS is good for industry etc also think that christian prayer should be mandatory in schools, Harry Potter teaches witch crash and satanic rituals, and that DCMA is good for consumers.... My point being, people (myself included) are a bunch of morons.
If you consider that MS has not added anything (other than.NET to extend the monopoly) that is really innovative into IE (copying Netscape doesn't count) in a really long time, or that IE hasn't really progress since Netscape disappeared (mozilla is now pushing them to improve a little (which is why MS IE 6 looks similar to mozilla.....)) you have to wonder if MS IE endevor has really been good for consumers. Just because it's cheaper doesn't mean it's better.
I also don't think the monopoly case is REALLY just about Netscape vs IE. If you look at the settlement for example, the DOJ seemed to think that is was about the lack of freedom for hardware retailers that wanted to include MS Win with their hardware, and about whether hardware vendors should have more control over what the people see when they turn on the computer....
Jeez, one person! Let's all move to Canada! I hear that there is a compatibility list for Win XP. Bye Bye the argument that Win supports all hardware vs. linux doesn't..... I've had trouble installing almost all versions of windows.... Seems like like this story would be in the same category as the woman @ RedHat would was forced to move to Linux....
Let's see, maybe if I call my IT guys, they'll let me replace windows NT with linux..... nope, Hell NO!
Dont' forget that with Win XX you still have to have staff, sysadmins, distributions, more staff, more sysadmins, more hardware, etc, etc.....
I think the troll that you are responding to has typical Windowitis... Apply "End User" mentality when neccessary (windows is easy to use, and practically administers itself (which is why the company I work at has lots of WinAdmins and is trying really hard to lock the machines down to prevent us evil users from f___king up our windows boxes))... It's powerful and "full featured" (read complex (but not don't read that....)) when necessary. TCO is practically nothing.... when linux has a high TCO.....
"IE is fast..... and most people have the newest version".... "Most slashdotters are geeks... and immediate (sic) go out and download the latest and greatest"..... "Joe Public doesn't do this (download the lastest)"
Sounds like an IE Zealot to me.
Maybe your site looks like crap on Netscape 4.x because you are using IE non standard crap.....
Man, if overhyping is going to kill a product, what's the deal with every single OS and product shipped my M$? Talk about overhype. We can only hope that XBox dies from overhype.....
But insulting people has worked with the M$ advocates..... I think that M$ advocates are the kind of people who can dish it out, but can't take it. Very thin skinned. Most of the "negative advocating" from linux people seems to be pointing out flaws in M$ products, complaining about M$ abusing it's monopoly, silly uses of M$, and other such things. I see much more pure "Linux sucks (just because it 1) isn't from M$ or 2) just because it sucks) from the M$ advocates.
Wow! Did you think of that response all by your self? Or was it on a M$ press release somewhere? Why are Linux Advocates called Zealots by M$ zealots when the Linux Advocates are no more aggressive than the M$ zealots are?
acceptable => M$ is great, everything else sucks, you suck because you don't use M$. All hail Bill Gates!
zealot => Linux is great, M$ causes us problems that we like to complain about
Here's an interesting story.... We recently had a new house built. During the construction locks were install that have a pin that enables the builder to use a common key for all the locks in all the houses he was working on. We didn't know this thou..... After the builder was done, we had a locksmith come in and rekey all the locks (the builder was a _______ whom we didn't trust). The locksmith pointed out to us that the builder had left this pin in, making our house very vounerable (when is/. going to add a spell check?) to break ins.
I would relate M$ to the builder, and the locksmith to the security boards.
More like "who sold you the expensive lock that was really a cheap lock, and then tried to convince you that 1) it really was a good lock, and 2) it's the fault of the consumer advocates who tried to point out that it was a bad lock, and here is why it's a bad lock, and others shouldn't buy the cheap lock and the company that originally sold the cheap lock as an expensive lock (and knew it was a cheap lock) should be help responsible to fix the lock or at least inform everyone who bought the cheap lock that it is a cheap lock, but they aren't going to do that because it might hurt their sales so ultimiatly, the consumer who the original company claims theirs is the only interest of the company is the last thing (the consumer) that the company is interested in benefiting.
Personnaly, after reading the memo, I think that the FBI should go after this pack of lawyers. They have already broken the DCMA law by the reverse engineering that they have done. Let's send these cracking, hacking lawyer scum to jail!!!
If you're out there activily working the idea, yes. If you come up with something that becomes obvious as the other technologies progress, but have been sitting on your hands waiting, then no... You deserve nothing!
Which is exactly the problem with patents. I think that if TiVO can show that they created this idea without knowing about the patent (which doesn't sound hard as it sounds like the "pause" company was sitting on it) that they should be able to get a co-patent (or something) on the idea.
I agree with the guy who indicated that it seemed like the company patented everything it could think of in hopes that someone else would do something useful, and then jump on them.
Maybe we need a system where if the patent isn't applied (or activily trying to apply) it, then after a limited time it automatically expires (to prevent this type of squatting)
Spoken like a true M$ believer. If issues on "not as main stream hardware as this person would like" was a reason to not use an operating system; then nobody would be using windows today. Geez. If a "not working as expected in a hetrogeneous environment" is reason to reject an operating system, I'll have to let my managerment know that they need to dump M$ Windows.
Maybe the problem isn't with the single linux box, maybe it is the other way around. Maybe the company is running a broken M$ windows driver and it is reacting poorly to a correctly written linux driver? Hmmmmm..... Just because there are lots doesn't mean it follows the standards.....
Maybe I missed a message, even though I see all 256 of 256, but WTF???? The poster wasn't talking about floppy drives. He was talking about using word, and how slow and sloppy and bloated word code and data files are.
Just because word is "good enough" for you doesn't mean it doesn't suck rocks. I personally have been learning to hate M$ Outlook. It is missing all those import little features that would make it usable. Instead it has fluff that is complete useless but "pretty"
I love how it is NEVER EVER NOT EVER REMOTELY POSSIBLY a problem with the M$ software. It must be 1) the hardware, 2) the setup (which M$ makes sooooo easy that you have to be a moron to get wrong), or 3) you're a moron and if you just took enough M$ certification classes you would eventually stop being a moron.
Yes it is M$'s fault, everything on that box was from M$ and it couldn't work together.
I would have thought that someone who works in a M$ shop would be more familiar with M$ stuff and not tomcat stuff. Maybe the person just started, but why would a M$ shop hire a java/non-M$ person?
Maybe it turns out that tomcat/java was the best solution and that M$ just didn't handle it.
We all know that (needless) forking is really bad on a project. It makes more sense to have the base MySQL, and NuSphere stuff be add-ons/patches. At least until every gets together on what's going on.
I think that NuSphere tried (is still trying) to muscle in on MySQL and become THE MySQL company. I sort of see it like the Sybase/M$ thing. For a long time M$ just resold Sybase stuff. Then they decided they didn't need Sybase anymore so they dumped them and put their marketing behind M$ SQL Server. No hardly anyone reconizes that Sybase wrote the core of M$ SQL Server......<p>
I think we all need to support MySQL AB as the original authors of MySQL. The people who risked their butts to bring it to us. I also think we should all tell NuSphere that they should be grateful to MySQL AB and learn to play nicely. (Unless they want to be view in the same negative light as M$)
Slashdot Mirror
First, I appologize as my spelling sucks today.
My opinion is that geeks have two phases in their lives. When they are young (and stupid/innocent) they work way too many hours trying to make a big bang. They still have the illusion that if they work really hard, and sacrofic their personal live they will be rich by 27. When they hit 27, they have married the first girl that would sleep with them, their wife is pregenant. This is when they hit the second stage and become "family unit isolated". They put in their time and then rush home to the wife, kids, and playstation.
If we geeks weren't allowed to have a computer, video game console, tv, palm, or any other time consuming electronic appliance, there might be a change for us. We would be forced to get out and socialize.....
You would think that user groups would be a good solution for geeks getting out more, but a lot of us can only manage to make the technical meetings and then run away before the social hour starts....
Ah, but that's the whole point. Let the consumer make that determination. I wouldn't spend $50 for a "premium" browser. I can't stand the "premium" features of browsers. What if all the resellers choose a better product to bundle? Then the IE would shrivel up and die.
what would hold the Internet/Application company from charging for Internet Explorer?
That's exactly the point. M$ should be required to have to sell IE as a seperate product, capable of standing on it's own. And not just the IE of today (after the other major commercial competitor has been removed) but IE 5-6 years ago, back when Netscape was king. If M$ had sold IE seperately, then we might not be where we are today. (* Yes, some would say the Netscape was giving away navigator, but officially they were selling it). Remember, 5-6 years ago, downloading something took a considerable effort. It took me a couple nights to finally get Netscape downloaded. By bundling IE, M$ overcame a major obsticle that netscape couldn't (because they didn't have a monopoly on the OS to bundle it with).
What the hell does freedom have to do with it? This isn't a basic freedom issue. It's about consumers and potential being protected from a predator (M$). Who said that a time warner tax was okay? I want that removed also.
I want the ability to read M$ word documents on my Unix box, I want software that doesn't need to be updated just because M$ saw a need to fix^h^h^change^h^h^h^h^h^break it so that their monopoly is broken. I want Netscape to have enough funding (and the ability to make money) so that a better product than IE is available to me. Yet, I can't have any of these things since the DOJ has decided to protect the M$ monopoly.
Gee, and Jr (shrub) is a known moron, he let it slide, and now he is in the whitehouse.
I imagine what the comment was saying is that it isn't "C". This means that all of the libraries created in "C" aren't automatically bound to the language. Perl, Ada, Java, and Lisp all have this "problem". The usual response is 1) there is a "painless" way to call C functions, or 2) the library that was mentioned has a binding (ie GTK binding).
Personally, this is a major reason why I don't use Ada. Sure you could add in C functions, sure there were bindings... But! it was a real pain to do. Calling C functions was annoying and the bindings I was forced to use (the only binding that existed) were broken. So things are easy to call via C functions calc_some_value(x,y) is easy, but when you start getting into callbacks, it becomes more difficult. I avoid Perl GUI programming for the same reasons.
Sure Lisp is industrial strength, but if I have to do lots of extra work to rapid develop something, I feel like I am losing the rapid development. (This seemed to be one of the benefits of Lisp, rapid development).
We really need some sort of library system (and don't say activeX or COM) that languages can automatically support... Just load the library, and call into it with the languages native invocations methods...
I regularily use things that don't need bleeding edge libs. Maybe the latest alpha/beta KDE or Gnome require these, but most stuff doesn't. I believe that this tale needs to go the way of the "linux is hard to install so it sucks and will die a slow painful death" agrument....
This is the economics of a monopoly. Make a high barrier to entry...
I don't think it would kill MS, but it might give them a shake up.... Keep doing bad things and someone will smack you with a stick...... vs Keep doing things and shrub will reward you by eliminating the only obstacle to your monopoly.....
Hear Hear
Hear Hear Hear Hear Hear Hear Hear Hear Hear Hear Is that enough words now?
The same voters that think that MS is good for industry etc also think that christian prayer should be mandatory in schools, Harry Potter teaches witch crash and satanic rituals, and that DCMA is good for consumers.... My point being, people (myself included) are a bunch of morons.
.NET to extend the monopoly) that is really innovative into IE (copying Netscape doesn't count) in a really long time, or that IE hasn't really progress since Netscape disappeared (mozilla is now pushing them to improve a little (which is why MS IE 6 looks similar to mozilla.....)) you have to wonder if MS IE endevor has really been good for consumers. Just because it's cheaper doesn't mean it's better.
If you consider that MS has not added anything (other than
I also don't think the monopoly case is REALLY just about Netscape vs IE. If you look at the settlement for example, the DOJ seemed to think that is was about the lack of freedom for hardware retailers that wanted to include MS Win with their hardware, and about whether hardware vendors should have more control over what the people see when they turn on the computer....
Jeez, one person! Let's all move to Canada! I hear that there is a compatibility list for Win XP. Bye Bye the argument that Win supports all hardware vs. linux doesn't..... I've had trouble installing almost all versions of windows.... Seems like like this story would be in the same category as the woman @ RedHat would was forced to move to Linux....
Let's see, maybe if I call my IT guys, they'll let me replace windows NT with linux..... nope, Hell NO!
Dont' forget that with Win XX you still have to have staff, sysadmins, distributions, more staff, more sysadmins, more hardware, etc, etc.....
I think the troll that you are responding to has typical Windowitis... Apply "End User" mentality when neccessary (windows is easy to use, and practically administers itself (which is why the company I work at has lots of WinAdmins and is trying really hard to lock the machines down to prevent us evil users from f___king up our windows boxes))... It's powerful and "full featured" (read complex (but not don't read that....)) when necessary. TCO is practically nothing.... when linux has a high TCO.....
"IE is fast..... and most people have the newest version" .... "Most slashdotters are geeks... and immediate (sic) go out and download the latest and greatest" ..... "Joe Public doesn't do this (download the lastest)"
Sounds like an IE Zealot to me.
Maybe your site looks like crap on Netscape 4.x because you are using IE non standard crap.....
Man, if overhyping is going to kill a product, what's the deal with every single OS and product shipped my M$? Talk about overhype. We can only hope that XBox dies from overhype.....
But insulting people has worked with the M$ advocates..... I think that M$ advocates are the kind of people who can dish it out, but can't take it. Very thin skinned. Most of the "negative advocating" from linux people seems to be pointing out flaws in M$ products, complaining about M$ abusing it's monopoly, silly uses of M$, and other such things. I see much more pure "Linux sucks (just because it 1) isn't from M$ or 2) just because it sucks) from the M$ advocates.
Wow! Did you think of that response all by your self? Or was it on a M$ press release somewhere? Why are Linux Advocates called Zealots by M$ zealots when the Linux Advocates are no more aggressive than the M$ zealots are?
acceptable => M$ is great, everything else sucks, you suck because you don't use M$. All hail Bill Gates!
zealot => Linux is great, M$ causes us problems that we like to complain about
Here's an interesting story.... We recently had a new house built. During the construction locks were install that have a pin that enables the builder to use a common key for all the locks in all the houses he was working on. We didn't know this thou..... After the builder was done, we had a locksmith come in and rekey all the locks (the builder was a _______ whom we didn't trust). The locksmith pointed out to us that the builder had left this pin in, making our house very vounerable (when is /. going to add a spell check?) to break ins.
I would relate M$ to the builder, and the locksmith to the security boards.
More like "who sold you the expensive lock that was really a cheap lock, and then tried to convince you that 1) it really was a good lock, and 2) it's the fault of the consumer advocates who tried to point out that it was a bad lock, and here is why it's a bad lock, and others shouldn't buy the cheap lock and the company that originally sold the cheap lock as an expensive lock (and knew it was a cheap lock) should be help responsible to fix the lock or at least inform everyone who bought the cheap lock that it is a cheap lock, but they aren't going to do that because it might hurt their sales so ultimiatly, the consumer who the original company claims theirs is the only interest of the company is the last thing (the consumer) that the company is interested in benefiting.
Parse that sucker!
Personnaly, after reading the memo, I think that the FBI should go after this pack of lawyers. They have already broken the DCMA law by the reverse engineering that they have done. Let's send these cracking, hacking lawyer scum to jail!!!
If you're out there activily working the idea, yes. If you come up with something that becomes obvious as the other technologies progress, but have been sitting on your hands waiting, then no... You deserve nothing!
Which is exactly the problem with patents. I think that if TiVO can show that they created this idea without knowing about the patent (which doesn't sound hard as it sounds like the "pause" company was sitting on it) that they should be able to get a co-patent (or something) on the idea.
I agree with the guy who indicated that it seemed like the company patented everything it could think of in hopes that someone else would do something useful, and then jump on them.
Maybe we need a system where if the patent isn't applied (or activily trying to apply) it, then after a limited time it automatically expires (to prevent this type of squatting)
Spoken like a true M$ believer. If issues on "not as main stream hardware as this person would like" was a reason to not use an operating system; then nobody would be using windows today. Geez. If a "not working as expected in a hetrogeneous environment" is reason to reject an operating system, I'll have to let my managerment know that they need to dump M$ Windows.
Maybe the problem isn't with the single linux box, maybe it is the other way around. Maybe the company is running a broken M$ windows driver and it is reacting poorly to a correctly written linux driver? Hmmmmm..... Just because there are lots doesn't mean it follows the standards.....
Maybe I missed a message, even though I see all 256 of 256, but WTF???? The poster wasn't talking about floppy drives. He was talking about using word, and how slow and sloppy and bloated word code and data files are.
Just because word is "good enough" for you doesn't mean it doesn't suck rocks. I personally have been learning to hate M$ Outlook. It is missing all those import little features that would make it usable. Instead it has fluff that is complete useless but "pretty"
I love how it is NEVER EVER NOT EVER REMOTELY POSSIBLY a problem with the M$ software. It must be 1) the hardware, 2) the setup (which M$ makes sooooo easy that you have to be a moron to get wrong), or 3) you're a moron and if you just took enough M$ certification classes you would eventually stop being a moron.
Yes it is M$'s fault, everything on that box was from M$ and it couldn't work together.
I would have thought that someone who works in a M$ shop would be more familiar with M$ stuff and not tomcat stuff. Maybe the person just started, but why would a M$ shop hire a java/non-M$ person?
Maybe it turns out that tomcat/java was the best solution and that M$ just didn't handle it.
I think that NuSphere tried (is still trying) to muscle in on MySQL and become THE MySQL company. I sort of see it like the Sybase/M$ thing. For a long time M$ just resold Sybase stuff. Then they decided they didn't need Sybase anymore so they dumped them and put their marketing behind M$ SQL Server. No hardly anyone reconizes that Sybase wrote the core of M$ SQL Server......<p>
I think we all need to support MySQL AB as the original authors of MySQL. The people who risked their butts to bring it to us. I also think we should all tell NuSphere that they should be grateful to MySQL AB and learn to play nicely. (Unless they want to be view in the same negative light as M$)